HSUS & Missourians for the Protection of Dogs LIE about SB 113

Last November, by the slimmest of margins, Missouri voters passed Proposition B; an initiative petition ballot measure sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).Deceptively sold as the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, Prop B would impose unsustainable restrictions on breeders… but more importantly, contained language which could be used to restrict and hamper agricultural husbandry of most ANY domesticated animal… which is consistent with HSUS honcho Wayne Pacelle’s public statements of his agenda to END domestication of animals.

Of course, the legislation only applies to LICENSED breeders, who are already required to remain compliant with current (and adequate) animal protective law in order to maintain their license.The proposition proposed to define any breeding facility with 50 or more intact dogs as a “puppy mill” regardless of the level of care provided… and the legislation did nothing to improve or enhance the enforcement of current law against unlicensed and illegal breeding facilities which were, in fact, the abusers of animals the promoters of the legislation pretended to address!

HSUS is NOT your local Humane Society Pet Shelter.In fact, less than 1% of their MASSIVE budget is given to support shelters or any other direct care of animals.HSUS is an Animal Rights Activist organization, established as a tax exempt nonprofit, but whose activities are primarily targeted toward lobbying for legislation to hamper, restrict or eliminate any activity involving man keeping domesticated animals, whether chickens, pigs, cattle or dogs and cats. (Tax Exempt nonprofits CANNOT lobby legally, and keep their tax exempt status!)

HSUS is at least as radical as PETA, except that they don’t protest in the nude or throw red paint… and they ARE more effective as they use the initiative petition process and misleading ballot language and deceptive advertising to create legislation advancing their agenda.

A month before the election, the proposition was leading in the polls by a wide margin, but as more Missourians became aware of the true meaning and effects of the proposed legislation, and of the mindset, agenda, and intents of the authors and promoters, the tide turned.Had the election been held mere weeks later, the measure would have failed!

Once the proposition passed, more and more information came to light which caused the necessity to modify the proposition before it could become legally and constitutionally enforceable law.There were provisions of the proposition which would not withstand legal muster.

Given the need to make adjustments, Prop B opponents joined forces with a number of sympathetic lawmakers to make changes to Prop B to make it less egregious .These changes enjoyed enough support in the legislature to pass the legislation and send it to Governor Nixon for signature.

As the Wayne Pacelle’s Humane Society of the United States and Barbara Schmitz’ Missourians for the Protection of Dogs (a local HSUS clone group set up to oversee the campaign for Prop B) began to recognize that Missouri was not going to simply cowtow to them and implement their whims as law… they went into full frenzy mode.The airwaves rang with advertisements accusing Missouri Lawmakers of “disregarding the will of the people” and “repealing” Prop B’s requirement to provide adequate food and clean water!!

“Prop B would require that dogs have continuous access to water; SB 113 removes that provision and replaces it with current law. Prop B mandates an annual visit by a veterinarian to every puppy mill and requires that the veterinarian actually examine each dog; SB 113 removes the requirement that each dog be inspected.”

Well, at least here Pacelle is more honest than the radio ad by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs which claims that SB 113 “Repeals the requirementto provide clean water” without the statement that it replaces it with CURRENT LAW.

The fact is that current law already requires adequate provision of clean food and water!!The Animal Care Facilities Act of 1992 (ACFA) requires adequate food and water be provided.

Adequate water means the provision of a supply of potable water in a safe receptacle, dish or container. Water shall be provided continuously or as often as necessary to ensure the animal’s health and wellbeing, but not less than once each eight (8) hours for at least one (1) hour each time, unless restricted by the attending veterinarian. Water receptacles must be kept clean and sanitized in accordance with this rule and before being used to water a different animal or social grouping of animals.

“Adequate food” means the provision of wholesome food at suitable intervals of not more than twelve (12) hours. Animals must be fed at least once each twelve (12) hours, unless the dietary requirements of the species require a longer interval and except as otherwise might be required to provide adequate veterinary care. The food must be uncontaminated, wholesome, palatable and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain the normal condition and weight of the animal. The diet must be appropriate for the individual animal’s age and condition. Food

receptacles used for animals must be readily accessible to all animals and must be located so as to minimize contamination by excreta and pests and be protected from rain and snow. Feeding pans must be safe and either be made of a durable material that can be easily cleaned and sanitized or disposable. If the food receptacles are not disposable, they must be kept clean and must be sanitized in accordance with this rule. If the food receptacles are disposable, they must be discarded after one (1) use. Measures must be taken to ensure that there is no molding, deterioration or caking of feed.

Prop B outlaws the use of stacked cages and painful wire flooring for dogs, sets parameters for the temperatures to which dogs can be exposed, sets humane enclosure standards and uniform standards for outdoor access, limits breeding frequency, and limits the number of reproductively intact dogs used for breeding in these mills. SB 113 removes all of these provisions from Prop B, and reverts back to existing law — the same law that allowed for the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs.

Again, the provision of Prop B is being set aside in favor of current law.So let’s look at both.

Prop B:

“Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise about 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

Ok, every enclosure must be ground level – unstacked.What’s wrong with a 2nd level?And it requires a SOLID floor.So a dog would have to share his enclosure with his own urine and feces till it was hosed down?Current law allows for a wire floor that these wastes can fall thru into a collection pan!

Current law (ACFA):

Housing facilities MUST at all times:

• be structurally sound and kept in good repair with no sharp edges;

• protect the animals from injury, enable them to remain dry and clean;

• contain the animals securely and restrict other animals from entering;

• enable all surfaces that are in contact with the animals to be readily cleaned daily and

sanitized or replaced when worn or soiled;

• during cleaning, animals must be removed unless the enclosure is large enough to ensure

the animals would not be harmed, wetted, or distressed in the process; animals nearby

must be protected during the cleaning.

• have floors that are constructed in a manner that protects the animals’ feet and legs from

injury, strong enough not to sag, and contain solid resting surface(s) large enough to

comfortably hold all occupants of the enclosure;

• be sufficiently heated and cooled to protect the animals at all times from temperature

extremes and to provide for their health and well-being (temperature cannot fall below 50

degrees Fahrenheit for animals not acclimated to colder temperatures, or rise above 85

degrees Fahrenheit);

• Be sufficiently ventilated to provide for the animals’ health and well-being and to

minimize odors, drafts, ammonia levels, and moisture condensation;

• have surfaces that are impervious to moisture;

• have sufficient lighting and provide a regular diurnal lighting cycle and protect the animals

from excessive light;

• have properly equipped and maintained drainage and waste disposal systems in order

to minimize contamination, disease, odors, pest infestation and to keep the animals dry;

• have washrooms and sinks

• have fire detection and fire extinguishers

So, which of these do YOU think better outlines proper care of dogs?Can you see how misleading Pacelle’s statements are? He implies that modifying HIS proposal (composed and designed to advance the HSUS agenda) would somehow leave breeding dogs and puppies UNPROTECTED against these unscrupulous and unrestricted licensed breeders!!Yet it is not unlicensed breeders who abuse dogs in the first place!Licensed breeders must comply with current law, which, as you see, DOES provide for adequate care!And as I said, Prop B does not address the unlicensed illegal breeders who DO keep breeding stock and puppies in deplorable conditions!

So there are two things at work. First, lawmakers are seeking to undo a voter-approved law, just a few months after it was passed and before it’s even taken effect (that will be in November 2011).

And second, they are lying to the people about their shenanigans in Jefferson City, hoping to confuse them with the language of “fix.” SB 113 “fixes” nothing. It’s wholesale repeal.

If lawmakers were seeking to “undo” Prop B, they would REPEAL it outright.There were problems with the proposal as written which would make it un-enactable in the first place!It MUST be fixed.But remember, Prop B didn’tmake ANY improvements to the required care of the animals over current law!! But it DID establish a limits and requirements on breeders which would make the practice economically unsustainable!And it created a pathway by which to restrict agricultural husbandry of other animals.

Prop B was a response to the inaction of Missouri lawmakers in the first place. For nearly two decades, the breeding industry and its apologists failed to convince citizens that all was well. Instead, the problems of puppy mills grew and went unanswered. Then the voters stepped in.

If there was inaction, it was on the part of Missouri Law Enforcement against the ILLEGAL, UNLICENSED breeders who operated TRUE puppy mills.As we’ve shown, the laws in existence since 1992 were quite adequate!But the target of Prop B was licensed, law abiding and ethical breeders.HSUS stepped in.HSUS doesn’t have any love or fondness for the dogs (perhaps evidenced by HSUS failure to provide even 1% of their humongous budget to actual animal care or support of shelters who provide care!)HSUS wants to END dog breeding!Wayne Pacelle has SAID SO!

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals… To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal.I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” – Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p.251.

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold.In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.”– Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p266.

With misleading ballot language written by the complicit Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, Missouri voters were duped.And in large measure, they are now aware of it and resent it… and are DEMANDING the Missouri Legislature take action to fix Prop B.